Freedom of debate

[Manfred Belheim]

I was trying not to mix freedom of debate with freedom of speech but apparently they overlap too much to make a distinction. And now we are debating what bigotry means for one might not mean the same for someone else and I think that is fair. No need to go "your idea of bigotry is technically wrong" and that's "stupid".

Well surely we can agree that "I will hunt you down" is a targeted threat. I don't think it would be reasonable to assert that anyone saying "bigotry" should be allowed under free speech is defending direct threats.

I experienced lack of freedom to debate on the colonialism thread...it didn't felt just like a limitation of my speech, it felt like "your thoughts on this are so wrong you are not even allowed to participate" and I still don't feel I was particularly aggressive or abusive...at least not any more to whom I was debating with but he got allowed to keep participating and I didn't...but alas life is unfair...but I just can't seem to put up with it quietly!

Ha, I just noticed that my own comment about your comment being memory-holed has also been memory-holed, as no doubt this one will be in short order.

 

[Ordnael]

Here on the CFC your freedom is certainly limited - as it should be, it is a private domain no different from my family home, while you can come and express your opinion, I will excercise my freedom to throw you out on your bum if your opinion offends me.

There will be no debate on the matter.

I guess I should flock to other means of interacting in internet denizens.
But:
Facebook has family members...I just don't post there
Instagram is the new "my phalus is bigger than yours" competition plus brain rot reels
9gag is mostly brainrot, I lurk there while on the throne
reddit is just for lurking is too dense and filled with angry people
CFC works, it still has intelligent people that will challenge my views without being too abrasive all the time...I don't like some of the restrictions in place but I still love being here.

 

[danjuno]

Well surely we can agree that "I will hunt you down" is a targeted threat. I don't think it would be reasonable to assert that anyone saying "bigotry" should be allowed under free speech is defending direct threats.

Speech can cause harm even if it's not a direct threat. I do not recall any specific instances where Alex Jones told people to harass Sandy Hook families, but they were still harassed as a result of his speech. The key factor here seems to be how much of a platform you have. A random soapboxer on the street is unlikely to be a danger to anybody, but when you are an influencer with millions of followers you can rile a lot of people up without saying a direct threat to anybody.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Arguably, the sole purpose of government is to put limits on individual freedoms.

That is not an argument that I agree with.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Speech can cause harm even if it's not a direct threat. I do not recall any specific instances where Alex Jones told people to harass Sandy Hook families, but they were still harassed as a result of his speech. The key factor here seems to be how much of a platform you have. A random soapboxer on the street is unlikely to be a danger to anybody, but when you are an influencer with millions of followers you can rile a lot of people up without saying a direct threat to anybody.

I don't know enough about that case to comment. But "I will hunt you down" is a direct threat.

 

[Snowygerry]

That is not an argument that I agree with.

It is nonetheless considered a cornerstone of a just and civilized society.

Referees decide where your freedom ends and mine begins

The idea that “my freedom ends where yours begins” is a fundamental principle that lies at the heart of a harmonious and just society. This concept encapsulates the understanding that while individuals have the right to exercise their freedoms, those freedoms must not infringe upon the rights...

thefulcrum.us

1. Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech: In a democratic society, freedom of speech is a cherished right. However, when one person’s expression of this freedom crosses the line into hate speech or incitement to violence, it endangers the safety and well-being of others. In this case, the referee is the legal system, which steps in to protect individuals from harm while preserving the principle of free speech. Laws against hate speech exist to strike a balance between the two conflicting freedoms.

Now ofcourse this raises the question in how far the laws of the place you live correspond with your personal views. In my case the two fit nicely together, for others here apparently not so much.

 

[EnglishEdward]

That is a purpose of law. Government has other purposes.

 

[Snowygerry]

To enact the law is the primary purpose of any government is it not - what function of government could be more important ?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well traditionally the prime responsibility for a sovereign government was to protect its territory and citizens from external invaders.

 

[Nick723]

Well no because my whole point is that if you restrict "bigotry", wherever you're drawing that line, then that isn't free speech, it's restricted speech. Unless you're defining outright calls for violence or personal attacks or targetted harassment as bigotry, but if you are then you're twisting the meaning of the word. Nice fluffy speech doesn't need defending in the first place, the whole point of allowing free speech is that it's free.


Well in the context of state enforcement, what would "not allowed" mean? It surely can only mean prosecution or some other sort of direct sanction against the person saying it. And "I will hunt you down" is an example of a threat, not being bigoted.

My point was that free speech does not have to be absolute, even in a society that promotes freedom of speech. The classic example is that it is unacceptable to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre. I don’t think there has ever been a society (now or past) with complete freedom of speech (and nor would that be desirable).

I would also support bans on for example racist abuse (which I include in a broad definition of bigotry). Slander is another area where speech should be restricted, and so on.

However this should not be confused with a lack of a right to offend. Or that the general principle of ‘as much freedom of speech as possible’ shouldn’t be one we strive for.

 

[Samson]

The classic example is that it is unacceptable to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

It is worth pointing out that in the actual case where that phrase was coined the apparently non-existant fire was the first world war, and the people were punished for saying it is a bad thing and people should resist being drafted to fight in the trenches.

This demonstrates the danger of letting the state decide what speech is acceptable, because their priorities are very different from ours.

 

[GenMarshall]

In recent years with cancel culture coming from the left, I’ve more or less drifted away from a universalist “I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your freedom of speech” and more towards a pragmatic approach of “I will only defend your freedom of speech if you defend mines”.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The classic example is that it is unacceptable to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

Isn't that regarded as a bad example for various reasons?

No it doesn't have to be absolute though, and I think it's fair to exclude explicit calls to violence, harassment, and obviously libel/slander. But I don't feel that the expressing of opinions should be limited in any way, nor arguing with other people's opinions. I feel like any reasonable definition of "bigotry" would fall into that latter category, and if it escalated to any of the others then... well we'd call it one of those things instead.

 

[danjuno]

In recent years with cancel culture coming from the left, I’ve more or less drifted away from a universalist “I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your freedom of speech” and more towards a pragmatic approach of “I will only defend your freedom of speech if you defend mines”.

Give. Me. A. Break.

The US Right has been inciting violence against others while claiming to be censored whenever they are asked to be respectful of others for decades, even before Trump made it risk-free to openly and regularly do so.

These are the same "free speech absolutists" who get into office and censor anything to do with minorities or non-right wing viewpoints in public spaces.

Or the cheers or deflections when someone on the right carries out political violence.

"Radical Left Violence!" this, "Woke SJWs Cancelling Everybody!" that, spare me the hypocrisy.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Why do you keep quoting yourself ?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

In recent years with cancel culture coming from the left, I’ve more or less drifted away from a universalist “I may not like what you say, but I’ll defend your freedom of speech” and more towards a pragmatic approach of “I will only defend your freedom of speech if you defend mines”.

I will not defend your assumed right to call minorities slurs

 

[Broken_Erika]

I will not defend your assumed right to call minorities slurs

To be fair, i don't think i've seen hm doing that. Also, he did manage to pull himself out of the Far-Right rabbithole, unlike most who fall in.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Why do you keep quoting yourself ?

Because it takes less time than writing out the point again.

 

[GenMarshall]

To be fair, i don't think i've seen hm doing that. Also, he did manage to pull himself out of the Far-Right rabbithole, unlike most who fall in.

That’s is correct. Plus it’s quite disingenuous to presume that I want to call minorities slurs. At most, my reaction if someone does that would be a visible disapproval towards the speaker. If it leads to an altercation, then the person forfeits their freedom of speech.

I’m not, as what people call a “free speech absolutist” since I DO have lines that I refuse to cross. If someone denies the Holocaust, for instance, not only I find it offensive from a historical perspective but also as a lead up to dehumanizing Jewish people and downplaying their trauma during the Third Reich.

My position, I will admit, comes more from a cynical outlook of the world with a chipped shoulder.

 

[danjuno]

That’s is correct. Plus it’s quite disingenuous to presume that I want to call minorities slurs. At most, my reaction if someone does that would be a visible disapproval towards the speaker. If it leads to an altercation, then the person forfeits their freedom of speech.

I’m not, as what people call a “free speech absolutist” since I DO have lines that I refuse to cross. If someone denies the Holocaust, for instance, not only I find it offensive from a historical perspective but also as a lead up to dehumanizing Jewish people and downplaying their trauma during the Third Reich.

My position, I will admit, comes more from a cynical outlook of the world with a chipped shoulder.

I was snippy with you earlier because you came in and said:

In recent years with cancel culture coming from the left,

I don't care for this framing because of it's use by right, for reasons I've already stated. Ostracism is not unique to any group of humans. Mass media and later social media made its reach greater, but for years I've seen right-wing politicians/media try to pin it all on the other side while engaging in it themselves, and worse.